AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AFSN/SSAN

X	RECORD  REVIEW
ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OFCOUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	IJOTHC

OTHER	DENY
x x x
x
x

ISSUES

A92.21
A93.21

INDEX NUMBER

A67.10

I  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE
3 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION
4 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE
COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMIITED AT TIME OF PERSONAL  APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE HEARING

HEARING DATE	CASE NUMBER

11Dec  2013	FD-2013-00512

Case heard in Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance with/without counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

TO:

SAF/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST.SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ISJS COMMAND DR, EE WING. JRD FLOOR ANDREWSAFB, MD 20761-7001

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE  REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2013-00512	

GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable.

The applicant was offered a personal  appearance before the Discharge  Review Board  (DRB) but declined and requests that the review be completed based on the available service record.

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDING: The Board denies the upgrade of the discharge.

ISSUE:  Applicant received a General discharge for Misconduct -Minor Disciplinary Infractions

Applicant contends discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh based on his sleep issues.  The records indicated the appticant received one Article  15, one Vacation, six Letters of Reprimand, one Letter  of Counseling, and three Records of Individual Counseling.  His misconduct included failed to go to duty on time (5x), failed to pay just debt (2x), failed to follow instruction, disrespected a NCO, failed to have own equipment during an inspection, and·failed to assist work center in accomplishing maintenance of fire fighting vehicles.	After a complete and thorough review of the applicant's records and the evidence provided by the applicant the Board found the applicant's contention to have no merit.  Although the applicant was diagnosed with upper airway resistance syndrome and received surgery prior to being discharged from the Air Force, his record did not indicate his medical problem was related to his
misconduct.  Additionally, the Vacation action, four of his Letters of Reprimand, one of his Letters of Counselling and one his Records of Individual Counselling did not pertain to failure to go to duty on time. The Board concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant's service outweighed the positive contributions he made in his Air Force career.   The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well. However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing. The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.

CONCLUSION: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge and determines the discharge should remain unchanged.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief